{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,8]],"date-time":"2025-10-08T16:30:52Z","timestamp":1759941052221,"version":"3.41.2"},"reference-count":9,"publisher":"Emerald","issue":"3","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2013,5,10]],"date-time":"2013-05-10T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1368144000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/site-policies"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013,5,10]]},"abstract":"Purpose<\/jats:title>The authors exploit the analogy between journal peer review and information retrieval in order to quantify some imperfections of journal peer review.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title>The authors define fallout rate and missing rate in order to describe quantitatively the weak papers that were accepted and the strong papers that were missed, respectively. To assess the quality of manuscripts the authors use bibliometric measures.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Findings<\/jats:title>Fallout rate and missing rate are put in relation with the hitting rate and success rate. Conclusions are drawn on what fraction of weak papers will be accepted in order to have a certain fraction of strong accepted papers.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>Originality\/value<\/jats:title>The paper illustrates that these curves are new in peer review research when interpreted in the information retrieval terminology.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1108\/jd-12-2011-0053","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2013,5,15]],"date-time":"2013-05-15T13:41:28Z","timestamp":1368625288000},"page":"411-416","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["Fallout and miss in journal peer review"],"prefix":"10.1108","volume":"69","author":[{"given":"L.","family":"Egghe","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Lutz","family":"Bornmann","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"140","reference":[{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H.\u2010D. (2009), \u201cThe luck of the referee draw: the effect of exchanging reviews\u201d, Learned Publishing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 117\u2010125.","DOI":"10.1087\/2009207"},{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bornmann|, L. and Daniel, H.\u2010D. (2010), \u201cThe manuscript reviewing process \u2013 empirical research on review requests, review sequences and decision rules in peer review\u201d, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 5\u201012.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.lisr.2009.07.010"},{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Bornmann, L. and Egghe, L. (2012), \u201cJournal peer review as an information retrieval process\u201d, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 527\u2010535.","DOI":"10.1108\/00220411211239093"},{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Egghe, L. (2004), \u201cA universal method of information retrieval evaluation: the \u2018missing\u2019 link M and the universal IR surface\u201d, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 21\u201030.","DOI":"10.1016\/S0306-4573(02)00094-8"},{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Egghe, L. (2007), \u201cExistence theorem of the quadruple (P,R,F,M): precision, recall, fallout and miss\u201d, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 265\u2010272.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ipm.2006.03.026"},{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Egghe, L. (2008), \u201cThe measures precision, recall, fallout and miss in function of the number of retrieved documents and their mutual interrelations\u201d, Information Processing and Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 856\u2010876.","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ipm.2007.03.014"},{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b7","unstructured":"Egghe, L. (2010), \u201cStudy of some editor\u2010in\u2010chief decision schemes\u201d, Annals of Library and Information Studies, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 184\u2010195."},{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b8","unstructured":"Salton, G. and McGill, M.J. (1987), Introduction to Modern Information Retrieval, McGraw\u2010Hill, Auckland, New Zealand."},{"key":"key2022012720113312000_b9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Schultz, D.M. (2010), \u201cAre three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate\u201d, Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 277\u2010292.","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-009-0084-0"}],"container-title":["Journal of Documentation"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emeraldinsight.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1108\/JD-12-2011-0053","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/JD-12-2011-0053\/full\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/JD-12-2011-0053\/full\/html","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,24]],"date-time":"2025-07-24T22:35:32Z","timestamp":1753396532000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emerald.com\/jd\/article\/69\/3\/411-416\/226221"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2013,5,10]]},"references-count":9,"journal-issue":{"issue":"3","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013,5,10]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1108\/JD-12-2011-0053"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/jd-12-2011-0053","relation":{},"ISSN":["0022-0418"],"issn-type":[{"type":"print","value":"0022-0418"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2013,5,10]]}}}